'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study
by the normal procedures of established science. This requires a change in attitude primarily on the part of scientists and administrators in
universities."

Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at
Stanford University:

Stanford Professor of Astrophysics Dr Peter A. Sturrock is a pretty well established and well respected scientist in the UFO field and has been
involved with some great research over the years with his colleague Dr.Jacques Vallee and billionaire philanthropist Laurance Rockefeller - he also
conducted some great work exposing the Condon report and revealed the 'huge
disconnecton' between Dr Condon’s conclusions and the actual reports of the scientists who conducted the research (also how many of his final
summaries were 'variously misleading, false or inaccurate').

In response to a debunking article published in APS Physics News, he provides some good advice in the letter below and presents six recommendations to
physicists invited to take part in a discussion about the UFO phenomenon - perhaps the first one is the most relevant.

'Do Your Homework Before Entering UFO Fray'

The August/September 2002 issue of APS NEWS contains an interesting article by Lawrence Krauss that deals, in part, with his experience in
participating in a debate on the problem posed by so-called UFO sightings. Since I have studied this problem for 30 years, I can perhaps offer
supplementary advice coming from a different perspective.

Here are my recommendations to physicists invited to take part in such a discussion:

1. Either stay away completely or do your homework first. This is a very complex subject, and "doing your homework" will not be quick,
easy or painless.

2. Do not imagine that training in physics provides you with any relevant credentials that enable you to pontificate on the problem. Expertise
in forensic science would be another matter.

3. Read the Condon report from cover to cover preferably from back to front so that you can better judge the extent to which Condon's
conclusions and recommendations follow from the work of his staff. (E.U. Condon, D.S. Gillmor, Scientific Study of UFOs, Bantam Books, 1969)

4. Learn something about the history of the subject. An excellent summary of the early days of the controversy can be found in The UFO
Controversy in America by D.M. Jacobs (Indiana University Press, 1975).

5. You might also wish to learn what a nongovernmental scientific review panel had to say about the subject by perusing my own book, The UFO
Enigma: A New Review of the Physical Evidence (Warner Books, 1999).

6. Finally, bear in mind that although most scientists treat this subject as a joke, the public does not, and we would do well to treat their
concerns with respect.

There are also two relevant statements below made by Dr Sturrock where he brings up the subject of deeply embedded prejudice within the mainstream
scientific community and the fact that many scientists have 'never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon' - he also
calls for the subject to be subjected to open and extensive scientific study.

"Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO phenomenon. To a scientist, the main source of hard
information (other than his own experiments' observations) is provided by the scientific journals. With rare exceptions, scientific journals do not
publish reports of UFO observations. The decision not to publish is made by the editor acting on the advice of reviewers. This process is
self-reinforcing: the apparent lack of data confirms the view that there is nothing to the UFO phenomenon, and this view (prejudice) works against the
presentation of relevant data." Peter A. Sturrock, "An Analysis of the Condon Report on the Colorado UFO Project," Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.1, No.1, 1987

"The definitive resolution of the UFO enigma will not come about unless and until the problem is subjected to open and extensive scientific study by
the normal procedures of established science.
In their public statements (but not necessarily in their private statements), scientists express a generally negative attitude towards the UFO
problem, and it is interesting to try to understand this attitude. Most scientists have never had the occasion to confront evidence concerning the UFO
phenomenon.” Dr. Peter A. Sturrock, Professor of Space Science and Astrophysics and Deputy Director of the Center for Space Sciences and Astrophysics at
Stanford University (Survey of American Astronomical Society)

Don't know how many folks agree with Dr Sturrock but there's also a few statements and links in
this thread explaining how the statistical conclusions of the Condon report should
'arouse sufficient scientific curiosity to continue UFO study' - there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained
report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO
subject.

there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity
and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.

To me, ^ this is why we can expect no help from the scientific community.

Most scientific endeavors are funded and controlled by the government, which means the science community is at the mercy of a bureaucracy that has
already been paid off or silenced because of "national security."

Plus, the government will try and pass of Project Blue Book as their scientific study into UFOs ...... and it all turned out exactly how we knew it
would.... a big lie.

Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall,
Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony
before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.

Prerequisites would include critical thinking and logic, statistics, a strong science background, especially in the biological branches, mythology,
anthropology, Jungian psychology, familiarity with psychiatric and sleep disorders, everything we know about perception, just mention a few.

there's also plenty of reasons to be highly skeptical of official unexplained report percentages and serious questions raised about the objectivity
and active agenda of government sponsored investigations into the UFO subject.

To me, ^ this is why we can expect no help from the scientific community.

Most scientific endeavors are funded and controlled by the government, which means the science community is at the mercy of a bureaucracy that has
already been paid off or silenced because of "national security."

Plus, the government will try and pass of Project Blue Book as their scientific study into UFOs ...... and it all turned out exactly how we knew it
would.... a big lie.

edit on 29-11-2012 by dplum517 because: typo

So the private sector doesn't do any scientific research? What are you basing your assumption on that the government funds 'most' scientific
endeavors?

Especially the advice to read up on the history and the deep thinking from such folks as Vallee, Sturrock, Haines, Sanderson, Hynek, Hill, Hall,
Hastings, Feindt, Druffel, Chalker, Schroeder et al....and of course all the early studies, Sign, Grudge, Blue Book, Condon, McDonald's testimony
before Congress--all this material is mandatory for the 'Ufology 101' course.

Prerequisites would include critical thinking and logic, statistics, a strong science background, especially in the biological branches, mythology,
anthropology, Jungian psychology, familiarity with psychiatric and sleep disorders, everything we know about perception, just mention a few.

Dang, the more I study, the farther behind I get (sigh).

I know the feeling and I couldn't have stated it better. Especially the points of your second paragraph.

So the private sector doesn't do any scientific research? What are you basing your assumption on that the government funds 'most' scientific
endeavors?

Of course the private sector does scientific research. But most of that is driven by profits. What profit would come from a group of scientists
looking to study UFOs on a large scale?

I was more so referring to government funded studies like the ones done at Universities.

-Like Monsanto giving grants to the University of Illinois and it's Agriculture department. We can say .... Monsanto is a private company, this is
true, but many executives are also members of the Department of Agriculture or the FDA.... so they are indeed in bed with each other.

-Also, look at how many grants have been given to the University of Colorado to study things like the Atmosphere and Plane Trails.

-We can also say that all the science done at JPL in the skunk works is on behalf of the government....even though it's a private company. All that
science is under the blanket of a security clearance.

So lets say we get a private group of scientists to study UFOs on behalf of the public and is funded by us, the public. At a certain point..... the
study group would run into road blocks setup by government agencies.

I notice your thread hasn't gotten that much attention.... you know why?

You're probably telling people something they don't want to hear...especially on the debunker side of things.

A few members who frequent this forum could stand to take this advice.... *cough cough* ..Drucsilla

What's there to talk about really? More words to support a hypothesis that has an irrationally high ratio of words to evidence to begin with? Not my
cup of tea thanks, I'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.

Scientific study--is that the study of existing reports, all of which have unanswered questions that weren’t investigated when the investigating was
good? In the case of the Mariana film nobody asked the F-94 pilots if they had their lights on, in the Phoenix Lights case nobody filed FOIA requests
for FAA and weather radar data, in the O’Hare case people were taking photos but nobody took charge and established a chain of evidence. It’s like
that for virtually every case, even those considered extremely well documented. So if scientific study is a matter of studying previous cases, the
issue of missing bits of data comes up very quickly. This happens not only in the UFO field. The blueprints for the Apollo hardware no longer exist,
which means that a project that requires a high level of detail would entail a lot of conjecture. Three sources (the manufacturer, the Smithsonian,
and Wikipedia) give different sets of dimensions for SpaceShipOne, which still exists. Which source, if any, is correct? A project to study almost
anything in great detail would soon reveal a lack of sufficient data for proper scientific study. In order to proceed, one would expect to have to
bring the object into the laboratory for detailed measurements, assays, performance tests, etc.

I am working on a system for gathering hard data on UFOs. It’s not up and running yet. That aside, in sighting cases even today some of the most
important pieces of information are missing. Suppose you have a sighting that just came in today with multiple (some excellent) witnesses on the
ground. Will investigators ask all the right questions? Will they go out and survey each location where a witness stood, asking him/her to point to
the spot in the sky where the object was seen, then compile a map? Will they file FOIA requests for FAA and weather radar data? Will any physical
trace evidence be subjected to proper laboratory tests? Do all that with the next 1,000 cases and then you can attempt a scientific study of those
cases. The best studies of existing cases so far haven’t gotten the mainstream media screaming for disclosure but instead are pretty much shrugged
off. Astrophysicist Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson gave an answer on TV of what would make scientists pay attention: "Next time you're abducted, steal an
ashtray."

Then there’s the infamous UFO Curse, by Philip J. Klass

No matter how long you live, you will never know any more about UFOs than you know today. You will never know any more about what UFOs really are
or where they come from. You will never know any more about what the U.S. Government really knows about UFOs than you know today. As you lie on your
own deathbed you will be as mystified about UFOs as you are today. And you will remember this curse.

I've posted this before I think,but here was a man that studied UFO's and when he presented his evidence to a peer review was not only not laughed
at,but they took the subject very seriously. en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Slave2FateI'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.

This is the most important thing you can do. It's really hard to convince someone the phenomena is real when they haven't seen it for themselves.
Once you do see it, you'll know something incredibly strange is going on. But if you aren't actively seeking personal proof, odds are you
will never be convinced, because it doesn't seem like the phenomena wants to Disclose itself in a mainstream way, and so the "proof" most people
are looking for may never come about.

The reason most scientists and physicists stay away from UFO research is because they fear of being ostracized by the scientific community. You can
thank our government for the stigma connected to UFO sightings, since they started the campaign a long time ago of labeling people who witnessed or
had incidents related to UFO's as crazy. This has been going on since the Roswell incident and Project Blue Book. Is it just a coincidence that
reporters will always smirk or joke when a sighting has taken place? They have no facts to accept witness reports as just plain nonsense, yet they
will continually report it with tongue and cheek.

Ask any pilot if they feel comfortable about reporting unidentified objects to the FAA. They fear their jobs would be in jeopardy if they reported
such things. The Phoenix lights is another example of how a mass sighting was quickly ridiculed by the governor of that state, but later he
relinquishes his comments stating that he was never satisfied with the governments explanation that they were high altitude flares.

Originally posted by Slave2FateI'll keep my eyes open for something a little more tangible.

This is the most important thing you can do. It's really hard to convince someone the phenomena is real when they haven't seen it for themselves.
Once you do see it, you'll know something incredibly strange is going on. But if you aren't actively seeking personal proof, odds are you
will never be convinced, because it doesn't seem like the phenomena wants to Disclose itself in a mainstream way, and so the "proof" most people
are looking for may never come about.

Yea, and once youve beheld it you have the luxurious condition of seeing all info pro and con from under the lamp of reality.

Great thread I wish there were more scientists like this man, and it is true that the scientific community and the government largly ignore the
publics concern for UFOs. I know this for a fact, because when talking to people at school many of them believe that we are not alone and wish to know
the answer. If only a member of ATS with a lot of money would be kind enough to fund a private project lol. Good job.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.